The Well-Timed Period comments:
As long as it’s acceptable in this country to debate and set policy based on the premise that, if a patient is female, she may only receive care if, and only if, her life is in danger, you don’t have a leg to stand on [chances are, quite literally if you're female and your condition isn't deemed life threating enough to operate and save said leg].As things stand now, the Drs. Christiansen of the world, your neighbors, politicians, and complete strangers get to decide how close to the brink of death you may be permitted to get, before you’re allowed to receive adequate medical care.
Related posts:
- Should advance directives be stored online on Google Health?
- Female physicians and the Canadian doctor shortage
- Religious bigotry
- Advance directives
- Hospitalized teen unplugs neighbor’s life support
- Hazardous religious practices
- The doctor tax
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 4 comments }
The Drs. Christensen of the world aren’t telling you what you can’t have; they’re telling you what they won’t provide. You can make an argument that doctors really should have no role in deciding what care they do and do not provide, but to argue that non-provision is prohibition is either willful naivete or rank dishonesty
anonymous,
Incorrect. They are telling pts they can’t have adequate care.
Practicing medicine based on a medical standard of care is *not* up to the individual MD to decide. It’s a basic job requirement.
Non-provision of adequate care is, you know, malpractice.
So it’s adequate care because you say it is?
anonymous,
Although I appreciate you thinking I was so important as to have an entire medical specialty base its standards of care on what I say, the answer is no.
It’s adequate care, as determined by medical research and the specialty board.
Comments on this entry are closed.